Who will be gone among the mid 3?

[DuckIII]

IMO, very hard to project Vuc as better than Edey on offense or defense, even next year.

Definitely not hard since Edey is a rookie and slow as molasses on a cold day. On the other hand Vuc was terrible last year on both ends and has no ability to improve defensively.

Regardless, “not as bad as 23-24 Vuc” isn’t much of a resume for the 11th pick. I don’t think AK will even consider taking Edey at 11, but it would be funny to me if he did.

[DuckIII]

I'm guessing the Bulls inability to move Zach's contract (unless they attach assets to it) will cost them keeping DeMar at his asking price.

All the Bulls need to do is find a way to reduce salary in that trade. They don’t even need real assets in return. And I absolutely believe they are willing to pure dump him at this point.

[DuckIII]

I see so many "trade Vooch, he sucks posts," but the fact that he sucks is why he's unlikely to be traded!

Well the idea, at least from me, is that it's probably worth attaching an asset (probably Caruso) to get rid of Vuc. And/or it's understood that whatever comes back in return may be worse, but possibly better fitting or at least better in the sense that it removes Vuc from Billy's decision making, and opens up minutes for a C prospect, likely drafted at 11.

I think it's bad for the team long-term to be attaching positive value assets to get negative value ones off the books. If you're trading Caruso, do it for something actually good and just suck it up re: Vooch.

Exactly. Using one of our only legitimate trade assets as simply a way to avoid two years of Vuc, particularly when the team has zero interest in anything but treading water the next two years with or without Vuc, would be a colossal mismanagement of assets.

Which is why I’m now a little concerned it might happen.

[League Circles]

IMO, very hard to project Vuc as better than Edey on offense or defense, even next year.

Definitely not hard since Edey is a rookie and slow as molasses on a cold day. On the other hand Vuc was terrible last year on both ends and has no ability to improve defensively.

Regardless, “not as bad as 23-24 Vuc” isn’t much of a resume for the 11th pick. I don’t think AK will even consider taking Edey at 11, but it would be funny to me if he did.

I mean, Edey is 7-4 and was just a semifinalist for ncaa DPOY. Vuc is 6-10 and one of the worst defensive centers in the league for sure, if not the worst. If Edey has plays called for him, he'll do better at those than Vuc. Vuc will probably be better off ball on offense, because he "stretches the floor".

I think people are going to be in for an utter shock when whoever, and I do mean whoever, plays at C for us next year clearly does better than Vuc, whether that's Andre, Edey, Sanogo, or another draftee or FA. It really is hard to fathom, but Doug put it perfectly which is finally what made it all make sense to me. Vuc has nice skills - ball skills (shooting in various ways, passing etc). Better than most Cs for sure. Unfortunately those skills aren't needed by any team because his skills in those areas are still inferior to those of almost every non center in the league, and then his defense is atrocious. He's really a huge mirage that looks and seems mediocre but is actually terrible.

[DuckIII]

IMO, very hard to project Vuc as better than Edey on offense or defense, even next year.

Definitely not hard since Edey is a rookie and slow as molasses on a cold day. On the other hand Vuc was terrible last year on both ends and has no ability to improve defensively.

Regardless, “not as bad as 23-24 Vuc” isn’t much of a resume for the 11th pick. I don’t think AK will even consider taking Edey at 11, but it would be funny to me if he did.

I mean, Edey is 7-4 and was just a semifinalist for ncaa DPOY. Vuc is 6-10 and one of the worst defensive centers in the league for sure, if not the worst. If Edey has plays called for him, he'll do better at those than Vuc. Vuc will probably be better off ball on offense, because he "stretches the floor".

They will both be bad defenders next year. Edey likely will always be a bad and highly exploitable defender in the NBA, but it’s not a certainty. NBA history would suggest that his rookie season will be by far his worst defensively though.

I was thinking more about offense. One could see Vuc having a bounce back season as a scorer next year. Happened in 22-23. And while I’ve written numerous times that I believe Edey’s scoring will translate somewhat to the NBA, there will be an adjustment for him as well and he’ll struggle.

Edey is in for a rude awakening on both ends of the court with the size and speed he will see every single night he plays. I think he can adjust to that on offense over time.

But again, my bar for the 11th pick isn’t simply that he might be better in the short term than a bad Vuc.

I think people are going to be in for an utter shock when whoever, and I do mean whoever, plays at C for us next year clearly does better than Vuc, whether that's Andre, Edey, Sanogo, or another draftee or FA. It really is hard to fathom, but Doug put it perfectly which is finally what made it all make sense to me. Vuc has nice skills - ball skills (shooting in various ways, passing etc). Better than most Cs for sure. Unfortunately those skills aren't needed by any team because his skills in those areas are still inferior to those of almost every non center in the league, and then his defense is atrocious. He's really a huge mirage that looks and seems mediocre but is actually terrible.

Vuc is bad, I agree.

[League Circles]

Well the idea, at least from me, is that it's probably worth attaching an asset (probably Caruso) to get rid of Vuc. And/or it's understood that whatever comes back in return may be worse, but possibly better fitting or at least better in the sense that it removes Vuc from Billy's decision making, and opens up minutes for a C prospect, likely drafted at 11.

I think it's bad for the team long-term to be attaching positive value assets to get negative value ones off the books. If you're trading Caruso, do it for something actually good and just suck it up re: Vooch.

Exactly. Using one of our only legitimate trade assets as simply a way to avoid two years of Vuc, particularly when the team has zero interest in anything but treading water the next two years with or without Vuc, would be a colossal mismanagement of assets.

Which is why I’m now a little concerned it might happen.

It's a lot more than than avoiding 2 years of Vuc. It opens up 2 positions for significant roles and potential growth from younger players than can help us more long term. It will likely allow us to keep and/or pursue other worthwhile players as well. Unless people think we should re-sign often-injured Caruso long term after next season, or they think that like a late frp this summer (likely bad contract for 4 years for a marginal nba player) is more valuable than re-signing Patrick or Andre, we gotta explore using Caruso to move Vuc or Zach IMO.

[DuckIII]

I think it's bad for the team long-term to be attaching positive value assets to get negative value ones off the books. If you're trading Caruso, do it for something actually good and just suck it up re: Vooch.

Exactly. Using one of our only legitimate trade assets as simply a way to avoid two years of Vuc, particularly when the team has zero interest in anything but treading water the next two years with or without Vuc, would be a colossal mismanagement of assets.

Which is why I’m now a little concerned it might happen.

It's a lot more than than avoiding 2 years of Vuc. It opens up 2 positions for significant roles and potential growth from younger players than can help us more long term.

No, that’s all it does. Because you can “open up” AC’s spot by trading him alone for actual plus value assets rather than negating his trade value by packaging him with Vuc. You get the roster spot plus assets.

You also don’t need to trade Vuc to reduce his role. You just reduce his role. Trading away a value asset because of your coach is just another example of horrible asset management. We’re already going to do that with Zach.

[League Circles]

Exactly. Using one of our only legitimate trade assets as simply a way to avoid two years of Vuc, particularly when the team has zero interest in anything but treading water the next two years with or without Vuc, would be a colossal mismanagement of assets.

Which is why I’m now a little concerned it might happen.

It's a lot more than than avoiding 2 years of Vuc. It opens up 2 positions for significant roles and potential growth from younger players than can help us more long term.

No, that’s all it does. Because you can “open up” AC’s spot by trading him alone for actual plus value assets rather than negating his trade value by packaging with with Vuc. You get the roster spot plus assets.

You also don’t need to trade Vuc to reduce his role. You just reduce his role. Trading away a value asset because of your coach is just another example of horrible asset management. We’re already going to do that with Zach.

I think this is where the theoretical deviates from reality. I don't really think there is much out there in terms of actual positive assets coming back for Alex in a trade. Unless someone considers a bad contract and a bad draft pick to be positive assets, which I certainly don't. Ironically, I think Alex's trade value would actually be higher if he was making MORE money, because matching would be a lot easier. Caruso is too limited offensively, too often injured and too old to be considered a building block of any type by anyone, so he's basically one year of a good contract to be a 6th man type or maybe a niche starter for the right team. Because he's not a building block, has only one year left and most good teams can't absorb him into cap space (cause they don't have it), you're probably looking at something like a player like Jevon Carter caliber and a #25 overall draft pick. To me, that simply sucks, and would be less desirable than just keeping Caruso, which is a waste, which is why I want to use him to make the types of changes that everyone advocates.

Just because Alex is a good player on a good contract and seems like he SHOULD be worth something good doesn't mean he actually is.

[MGB8]

I disagree there. While Alex is not a building block, what he is is an elite role player that fits really well on teams that have contention level offensive threats on the team. Teams with Lebron and Davis, with Embiid and Maxey, Luka and Kyrie, Edwards and KAT, Jokic and Murray, etc., etc.

Every single such team wants … needs … guys like Caruso, but they don’t all have them. Gary Payton 3 (who healthy, which is less than Alex). Derrick White, and Marcus Smart before him. Even Bruce Brown. White is better on offense by a but (though less than you might think, looks like better than is in Boston due to Tatum, Brown, etc,)… but that high level 3&D+ guard has big time value for contention level teams, and Caruso is among the very best at that.

What those teams can send out is the question - what chance that the 2 firsts aren’t so super late as to be barely worth more than an early 2nd. And factoring in which draft, too. Cuz that nearly as bad as an early 2nd, in the right draft, can have a lot of value (think Ayo and that very deep draft - late first including Grimes, Aldama, Cam Thomas, early 2nd including Robinson-Earl, Herb Jones, Miles McBride….).

[League Circles]

I disagree there. While Alex is not a building block, what he is is an elite role player that fits really well on teams that have contention level offensive threats on the team. Teams with Lebron and Davis, with Embiid and Maxey, Luka and Kyrie, Edwards and KAT, Jokic and Murray, etc., etc.

Every single such team wants … needs … guys like Caruso, but they don’t all have them. Gary Payton 3 (who healthy, which is less than Alex). Derrick White, and Marcus Smart before him. Even Bruce Brown. White is better on offense by a but (though less than you might think, looks like better than is in Boston due to Tatum, Brown, etc,)… but that high level 3&D+ guard has big time value for contention level teams, and Caruso is among the very best at that.

What those teams can send out is the question - what chance that the 2 firsts aren’t so super late as to be barely worth more than an early 2nd. And factoring in which draft, too. Cuz that nearly as bad as an early 2nd, in the right draft, can have a lot of value (think Ayo and that very deep draft).

I mean, yeah, everyone would like him, but have nothing of actual value to offer for him. A team could offer 5 late first round picks for him and that's still not actual positive value, because that just projects at 5 4-year guaranteed contracts for bad nba players.

I see a lot of people upset with our mediocrity very interested in exchanging it for even more long term mediocrity.

[DuckIII]

It's a lot more than than avoiding 2 years of Vuc. It opens up 2 positions for significant roles and potential growth from younger players than can help us more long term.

No, that’s all it does. Because you can “open up” AC’s spot by trading him alone for actual plus value assets rather than negating his trade value by packaging with with Vuc. You get the roster spot plus assets.

You also don’t need to trade Vuc to reduce his role. You just reduce his role. Trading away a value asset because of your coach is just another example of horrible asset management. We’re already going to do that with Zach.

I think this is where the theoretical deviates from reality. I don't really think there is much out there in terms of actual positive assets coming back for Alex in a trade.

This is definitely where your theory departs from reality. Not only is it objectively predictable that a beloved veteran player with a pristine reputation, one of the few elite defensive players in the league, in his prime, on a value contract, would return positive value assets, but it’s also been widely reported that AC is the guy we have that teams want. It’s not just theoretical.

Your idea is bad and unnecessary to accomplish your stated goals. It’s also not how AK has operated to date and he is painfully consistent. I put the likelihood at 0%.

[League Circles]

This is definitely where your theory departs from reality. Not only is it objectively predictable that a beloved veteran player with a pristine reputation, one of the few elite defensive players in the league, in his prime, on a value contract, would return positive value assets, but it’s also been widely reported that AC is the guy we have that teams want. It’s not just theoretical.

Your idea is bad and unnecessary to accomplish your stated goals. It’s also not how AK has operated to date and he is painfully consistent. I put the likelihood at 0%.

Again, of course teams want him. Let's see if they actually offer anything good for him. I'm unaware of a single report of something good being offered for him in the 3 years we've had him. Maybe I've missed something, or maybe people just want it to be true.

I mean, can Alex be swapped for another underrated, underpaid 30 year old guy at a different position who also has only a year left on his contract? Probably (to the extent that such players exist which is not a lot). But would that help us? No, not really.

Can he be traded for a bad player matching salary along with a draft pick that projects as an entirely meaningless 4 year guaranteed contract? Also, yes. But that just crowds our roster with 2 guys we shouldn't want in return for one we should want.

Can he be traded for a lottery pick or a young player on a longer, also good value deal who is more plausible to blossom into some kind of answer for us at some position? I'm all ears on specifics. Haven't really ever heard anyone suggest much - just a bunch of people casually saying words like "positive assets", or "picks". There is no such thing as objectively positive or negative assets, only in comparison with other specific players for other specific teams.

[MGB8]

I disagree there. While Alex is not a building block, what he is is an elite role player that fits really well on teams that have contention level offensive threats on the team. Teams with Lebron and Davis, with Embiid and Maxey, Luka and Kyrie, Edwards and KAT, Jokic and Murray, etc., etc.

Every single such team wants … needs … guys like Caruso, but they don’t all have them. Gary Payton 3 (who healthy, which is less than Alex). Derrick White, and Marcus Smart before him. Even Bruce Brown. White is better on offense by a but (though less than you might think, looks like better than is in Boston due to Tatum, Brown, etc,)… but that high level 3&D+ guard has big time value for contention level teams, and Caruso is among the very best at that.

What those teams can send out is the question - what chance that the 2 firsts aren’t so super late as to be barely worth more than an early 2nd. And factoring in which draft, too. Cuz that nearly as bad as an early 2nd, in the right draft, can have a lot of value (think Ayo and that very deep draft).

I mean, yeah, everyone would like him, but have nothing of actual value to offer for him. A team could offer 5 late first round picks for him and that's still not actual positive value, because that just projects at 5 4-year guaranteed contracts for bad nba players.

I see a lot of people upset with our mediocrity very interested in exchanging it for even more long term mediocrity.

If you can get an expiring and two presumably late firsts… yeah, those late firsts aren’t alone that much, but (1) depends on the draft, (2) occasionally the late first becomes a mid first where the contending team underachieves (which still is “depends on draft” in terms of direct value), and (3) those first can then be packaged with other players / contracts / cap space for something else, down the line. So, while not be-all, end-all, way more value in picking up 2 late firsts than using AC to have one less year of Vuc.

There is no “one step move” to get out of mediocrity. No 2 step or 3 step move, either. Bulls will not be even top-4 in East level for a minimum of 4 years and are at the beginning of a rebuild, whether they like it or not. It might have a harder floor or a softer one in terms of exactly how bad they get, and luck will be a big part in determining whether it takes 4 years, 8 years, 12 years or more before they are more than a play-in team… so the game is all about getting what assets you can to be opportunistic with any opportunities for a big jump.

[League Circles]

If you can get an expiring and two presumably late firsts… yeah, those late firsts aren’t alone that much, but (1) depends on the draft, (2) occasionally the late first becomes a mid first where the contending team underachieves (which still is “depends on draft” in terms of direct value), and (3) those first can then be packaged with other players / contracts / cap space for something else, down the line. So, while not be-all, end-all, way more value in picking up 2 late firsts than using AC to have one less year of Vuc.

It never depends on the draft. It depends on mostly luck. There are never, ever, ever, ever more than 5 or 10 guys in any given draft that you'd ever even want to give a long term contract to in retrospect. Yes, one of those guys is usually available in the 2nd round or even undrafted. And maybe you get lucky and pick them. But there is never, ever, ever 20+ guys that are of actual semi-long term on-court plus value as roster pieces in a draft, such that a strong draft pushes them down to the 20s. It's not even remotely close. Hell, if you get a long term core player outside of the top 5 you're quite fortunate. Outside of the top 10, outright lucky. Bulls are about as average of a franchise as there is in the last quarter century, and here are ALL of first round picks we've taken outside the top 10:

Corey Benjamin
Metta World Peace
Dalibor Bagarić
Taj Gibson
James Johnson
Jimmy Butler
Tony Snell
Doug McDermott
Bobby Portis
Denzel Valentine
Dalen Terry

I see 3 players, if I'm generous, that could be semi-core pieces for at least a few years in their prime on contenders (Artest, Taj and Jimmy). And I'm leaving out a bunch of guys taken with our picks that we traded that suck.

But you're also implying that one or both of the picks coming back for Alex would be deferred. Great, that's worked out so well for us the last 20 years. Always the alluring "future asset". Never materialize into much of anything, often literally nothing. But tempts fans who hate the present. I HATE future picks. Never know what they'll be or when they'll convey. If late firsts are worth something, we should immediately flip them. Why are we waiting to try to improve?

There is no “one step move” to get out of mediocrity. No 2 step or 3 step move, either. Bulls will not be even top-4 in East level for a minimum of 4 years and are at the beginning of a rebuild, whether they like it or not. It might have a harder floor or a softer one in terms of exactly how bad they get, and luck will be a big part in determining whether it takes 4 years, 8 years, 12 years or more before they are more than a play-in team… so the game is all about getting what assets you can to be opportunistic with any opportunities for a big jump.

I actually think it's lunacy for any team in the league to look more than 4 years into the future. Players and teams change so fast and there is so much parity that every team should be continuously operating on a continuously changing 4 year plan to win it all. Bull shouldn't be prioritizing next year, no, but they should be trying to build a serious winner that emerges in the next 2-4 years. Because losing simply doesn't drive winning. There is no reason to wait, rebuild, tank, etc whatsoever.

I do agree that opportunism is key, I just think moving Vuc (and even Caruso) opens us up much more quickly to jump on unknown opportunities. I can't stomach the test-tube philosophy of slowly becoming bad with the theory that that will inevitably make us slowly become good. This league is WAAAAAY less predictable than that.

So along the lines of my view on a 4 year plan for the Bulls, it roughly looks like surrounding Coby, Zach and Demar with a couple serious bodies at the 4/5 and see what happens. Probably doesn't win anything of note, but it probably DOES allow someone unexpected to emerge, and then you reshuffle as needed. NBA players only have 4 or sometimes 5 year contracts. Any plan that looks 8 years into the future is bound to have wild, wild errors in projection, both positive and negative.

[RedBulls23]

I'm guessing the Bulls inability to move Zach's contract (unless they attach assets to it) will cost them keeping DeMar at his asking price.

All the Bulls need to do is find a way to reduce salary in that trade. They don’t even need real assets in return. And I absolutely believe they are willing to pure dump him at this point.

I don't buy him coming off another injury where he's still owed another 3 years 136 can be just pure salary dumped.

We'll see though.

[Stratmaster]

Exactly. Using one of our only legitimate trade assets as simply a way to avoid two years of Vuc, particularly when the team has zero interest in anything but treading water the next two years with or without Vuc, would be a colossal mismanagement of assets.

Which is why I’m now a little concerned it might happen.

It's a lot more than than avoiding 2 years of Vuc. It opens up 2 positions for significant roles and potential growth from younger players than can help us more long term.

No, that’s all it does. Because you can “open up” AC’s spot by trading him alone for actual plus value assets rather than negating his trade value by packaging him with Vuc. You get the roster spot plus assets.

You also don’t need to trade Vuc to reduce his role. You just reduce his role. Trading away a value asset because of your coach is just another example of horrible asset management. We’re already going to do that with Zach.

Agreed. The coach gets paid to make the right rotation decisions for the team.

He wasn't afraid to make one of the most unheard of and insulting decisions of benching a prolific all-star scorer down the stretch of a close game because he missed shots earlier in the game.

Yet when it comes to Vuc, he seems scared of him. Vuc throws a little fit after 1 game and becomes the focal point of an offense that has Derozan and Lavine? That's cowardice and also sends a horrible message. Strike 2.

Billy has been putrid with roster management. A bully to one player, as a scapegoat, and a coward to a couple others.

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app